Author
Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency... (Read 536420 times)

Trump LOVES Pruitt. Pruitt does exactly what Trump wants (dismantle the EPA) and at the same time by doing that gives red meat to his base. Then, when Pruitt's called on his blatant corruption, Trump can point to Pruitt trying to destroy the EPA and say that's what everyone is complaining about. Meanwhile, corruption keeps getting normalized.

Trump LOVES Pruitt. Pruitt does exactly what Trump wants (dismantle the EPA) and at the same time by doing that gives red meat to his base. Then, when Pruitt's called on his blatant corruption, Trump can point to Pruitt trying to destroy the EPA and say that's what everyone is complaining about. Meanwhile, corruption keeps getting normalized.

Trump likes anyone as long as they continue to make him look good and/or increase his stature. Pruitt may be dismantling the EPA but since DJT gets to appoint his replacement this doesn't make him particularly valuable to him. Lately Pruitt's just getting egg on his face, and even GOP members of congress are getting pretty pissed off at his conduct. It looks bad, and it keeps looking bad week after week.My guess is he's shopping around for another loyalist who will continue to dismantle building regulations (the only thing Trump really cares about) while not getting hauled up in front of congress or having outrageous expenses constantly splashed on newspapers and debated on tv.

What is wrong with these people. We have made strides on cleaning up the environment and this jerk just wants to do away with it? So is he advocating putting toxic chemicals in rivers, toxic chemicals dumped into the ground? No regard for nature or people's lives. It is sickening.

Oh and Donny says coal is "beautiful clean coal". Really? Look at old pictures of the Titanic with the smoke stacks spewing black smoke. Coal is a dying industry and he thinks he is breathing life back into it. OR could it be he wants those votes it might bring.

More than wanting the individual votes of coal miners, Trump wants to be anti-establishment. He relishes the idea of bucking the system, of flaunting norms, of upsetting apple carts. Yes, he wants coal miners to vote for him and yes, he wants to appeal to blue collar workers everywhere by telling them that liberal elites are killing their livelihoods, but I think he also just really enjoys poking a stick in the eye of propriety and decorum and convention and established authority. It's why he brags about pussy grabbing. It's why he had hookers pee on the Obama's bed. It's why Pruitt is at EPA, and why he promotes coal. It's why he tried to kill obamacare. It's why he called Putin after the election. Trump just loves hearing expert advice and then doing the opposite, to see what he can get away with. I think it's a power trip for him.

"cooperation with special counsel Robert Mueller and his team has “been effectively frozen by Ukraine’s chief prosecutor” and that “the decision to halt the investigations by an anticorruption prosecutor was handed down at a delicate moment for Ukraine, as the Trump administration was finalizing plans to sell the country sophisticated anti-tank missiles, called Javelins.”

And... Rudy Guiliani has just spilt the beans on Trump reimbursing the Stormy Daniels payment, has said that the American people will rise up in revolt if Ivanka is so much as asked the time of day by Mueller, and described Jared as "disposable". Oy vey.

And... Rudy Guiliani has just spilt the beans on Trump reimbursing the Stormy Daniels payment, has said that the American people will rise up in revolt if Ivanka is so much as asked the time of day by Mueller, and described Jared as "disposable". Oy vey.

Ha. Guiliani claims that the $130k was for "expenses" and not for paying off Stormy. ("Ok, I lied about having sex with Stormy, and I lied about paying Cohen $130,000, but trust me this time - it wasn't hush money!")

Guiliani knows that paperwork exists to show that the $130k came from Trump. Mueller forced his hand.

Guiliani knows that paperwork exists to show that the $130k came from Trump. Mueller forced his hand.

I've been assuming since day one that the first thing the FBI did was pull everyone's bank records. They do have a whole financial crimes division devoted to this sort of things, after all. I'm sure they have everyone's tax returns, too.

I don't think so. He lies so reflexively it almost doesn't matter anymore. He is in no legal jeopardy whatsoever for lying to the press, lying to the American public, lying Putin, lying to Cohen or Stormy or Comey or 60 Minutes. He has spent his whole life spinning lies to investors and banks, and freely describes those lies in his books. Nobody cares, because you don't go to jail for being a pathological prevaricator.

The only lies that matter are the ones committed under oath, because those constitute perjury. So as long as he doesn't go under oath, he's in the clear. The FBI has already proven him a liar eight ways from Sunday, in some cases lying about things that are clearly crimes, but he just changes his story and tells a new lie that avoids whatever legal jeopardy is currently in front of him.

So for example, he lied about the Stormy Daniels payment because he thought it would be bad press for him to admit he paid hush money to a porn star. The FBI quickly figured out that he did pay hush money to a porn star, but that's not illegal. Doing it with campaign funds is illegal, so as soon as Trump saw the legal jeopardy presented by the campaign finance allegation, he changed his lie to accept the bad press of admitting paying hush money to a porn star without leaving himself open to possibility of prosecution for misusing campaign funds.

He previously went through this exact same process with Kislyak. First he lied that he never met with the Russians, then we saw pictures of him meeting with Russians in the Oval Office. Then he changed his lie to admit that he had met with the Russians but had not disclosed any sensitive information, then we learned he had disclosed classified information. Then he lied that he had met with the Russians and disclosed classified information, but it was okay because by doing so he was unclassifying the information. Eventually, he settled on a lie that he can't be prosecuted for.

Before that we went through this same story with his meeting in Trump Tower. First it never happened. Then it happened, but he didn't know about it. Then he knew about it, but it was only about adoption. Then he knew about it and it was about sanctions, but there was no quid pro quo. Then he knew it was about sanctions and there was quid pro quo, but the President wasn't involved. Then he knew about, admitted the collusion, and personally wrote the false statement to the press while aboard air force one. Whew! Finally, a lie that he can't go to jail for.

Darn that free press for holding him accountable!

Lying isn't illegal, and Trump knows that better than anyone. The only way that Mueller or anyone else is going to catch this slippery eel is to let him squirm from illegal action to illegal action, lying his way back and forth, until he finally settles on the least illegal lie he can find.

What gets me is that if/when Mueller questions Donny, why are the questions given out in advance? Doesn't that just give Donny and lawyers time to come up with new lies or if not lies twisted truths. In most normal hearings the person goes in cold and has no preview to the questions that will be asked. They know in general what will be asked. Surprise questions can bring out the truth. In Donny's case he will probably just plead the 5th. He has no off button so he can probably be tripped up on the questions given to him in advance. He has to shoot off his mouth even when told not to.

What gets me is that if/when Mueller questions Donny, why are the questions given out in advance? Doesn't that just give Donny and lawyers time to come up with new lies or if not lies twisted truths. In most normal hearings the person goes in cold and has no preview to the questions that will be asked.

Mueller has evidence against Trump and just wants him to incriminate himself, probably.

That, or giving them some (or most) of the questions beforehand might help avoid the legal fight of figuring out if a sitting POTUS can be compelled to testify by a grand jury.

Sol, your point about lies is good, but there is a point where lying becomes defrauding people. I don't know exactly where that line lies, but I suspect that Trump is more aware of it than we give him credit for.

What gets me is that if/when Mueller questions Donny, why are the questions given out in advance? Doesn't that just give Donny and lawyers time to come up with new lies or if not lies twisted truths. In most normal hearings the person goes in cold and has no preview to the questions that will be asked. They know in general what will be asked. Surprise questions can bring out the truth. In Donny's case he will probably just plead the 5th. He has no off button so he can probably be tripped up on the questions given to him in advance. He has to shoot off his mouth even when told not to.

In actually not uncommon for defense attorneys to ask for and receive a list of topics prior to a meeting in a criminal investigation. Often it allows the interviewee and his team to review pertinent facts about given events. This, in theory, minimizes the number of times that an interviewee has to say "I don't know" or "I can't remember" and can save everyone a lot of time.

What keeps the interviewee and his or her legal team from simply concocting a bunch of lies is the danger of perjury, particularly since its not known what collaborating evidence the investigator might have. Mueller will almost certainly ask for details for things he already knows about from other witnesses or documents to judge the truthfulness of the testimony. DJT's team keeps calling this a 'perjury trap' - but there's no actual entrapment, precisely because DJT and his team know generally what is going to be asked and have time to prepare. If anything it strengthens the case for obstruction, as every response can be considered deliberate.

Finally, while these 49 items have been labeled "questions," in reality most of them are topics or lines of inquiry. Only a few could be answered with simple 'yes/no' responses, and most will lead to obvious follow up questions. Mueller's team will have a detailed tree of follow up questions based on his previous response.

Sol, your point about lies is good, but there is a point where lying becomes defrauding people. I don't know exactly where that line lies, but I suspect that Trump is more aware of it than we give him credit for.

There are two ways where his lies might put him in legal jeopardy; if he lied to defraud individuals (beyond the absurd amount of leeway courts give for 'puffery' - an actual legal term where embellishments lsuch as claiming your product is 'the greatest ever' are permitted), or if his lies constitute obstruction of an investigation. Despite the claims in his tweets and rallies, one can obstruct an investigation even if no underlying crime is uncovered. In the former Mueller has to prove that Trump knew what he was saying was untrue and he said it with intent; the latter may be easier to prove (many will say it already has been proven) - intent still needs to be proven but unlike cases of fraud there needs not be harm caused.

I suppose one could argue that the entirety of whatever time DJT is president will be his "Full" presidency, regardless of whether he serves out an entire term (i.e. entire), much as we can discuss 'the impacts of Kennedy's Full presidency', even though that was cut short.

HuckaSanders looked a bit agitated today when she was asked questions. She barked something to the effect "you don't know who I am..." LOL, how much longer do you think she can take this hellish job? The Correspondents dinner, got to her me thinks!

HuckaSanders looked a bit agitated today when she was asked questions. She barked something to the effect "you don't know who I am..." LOL, how much longer do you think she can take this hellish job? The Correspondents dinner, got to her me thinks!

The correspondents really hammered her today.

I have no warm feelings or respect for SHS what-so-ever, but I also would never want her job regardless of the compensation. She basically has to go on the record every day and refute facts, deny anything has changed, and bully the press corp for doing their job†.I have a hard time coming up with a worse job description.

No, I don't think she will last until 2020, even if DJT somehow does. The 'half-life' of most DJT WH appointees seems to be about a year, and the WH Press Secretary is more volatile a position than most.

†"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost" - Thomas Jefferson 1786

Before HuckaSanders even says one word she has a big crabby puss on her. She has an ugly smirk on her face and barks out her non answers. It is an unpleasant thing to watch her and listen to her growl at the correspondents. The job definitely stinks when she is forced to lie for Donny and if she says one wrong thing he rips into her. The next time she comes out she won't give any facts, just her comments to speak to Donny's counsel. Why do they even bother to have her come out and say anything?

Before HuckaSanders even says one word she has a big crabby puss on her. She has an ugly smirk on her face and barks out her non answers. It is an unpleasant thing to watch her and listen to her growl at the correspondents. The job definitely stinks when she is forced to lie for Donny and if she says one wrong thing he rips into her. The next time she comes out she won't give any facts, just her comments to speak to Donny's counsel. Why do they even bother to have her come out and say anything?

My guess as to why they keep holding the daily briefing (even though they could decide simply not to) is all because of DJT's narcissism. He hates anything negative being said about him, but he cannot resist the opportunity to have a group of people entirely focused on him. His entire career he has tried to stay in the media, in the tabloids. Even when others would have kept their heads down he actively called into tv and radio stations and sent letters to magazines.

Yeah, Trump's legal team (like his cabinet) is a mess. It's hard to be a lawyer for a "genius."

It's hard provide a good legal defense for a client who refuses to listen to you.

There's been an active discussion in legal circles about whether Trump's lawyers are giving him spectacularly bad advice, or whether they are giving him sound advice and he's simply not listening to it. While the popular opinion seems to be that Trump simply ignores his council (and he very well may), it's also troubling that his legal team has made a rash of public statements about his legal peril and his legal options that most experts consider completely false. It's entirely possible (probably even?) that they are really making these statements to an audience of one, or that they were directed by their client to say those words - but in either case that would still border on legal negligence.

t's entirely possible (probably even?) that they are really making these statements to an audience of one, or that they were directed by their client to say those words - but in either case that would still border on legal negligence.

My suspicion is that these public statements are not meant to communicate advice to an audience of one, but rather intended to create a public narrative that boxes him in. Trump won't take legal advice but he doesn't want to go to jail, so the only way to control his behavior is to give him no choice. When Rudy destroys trumps current line about the Cohen payment, it could just be that trump refused to publicly admit the payment like rudy thinks he needs to to avoid jail, so Rudy just goes on tv and does it for him. Now trump has to go along with it whether he likes it or not, or else lose his lawyer. Legal advice enforced.

Of course door number three in this situation is that trump has been getting spectacularly bad legal advice from his lawyers because his lawyers are patriots, who will one day write books about how they saved the republic by torpedoing the great usurper.

While we're on the topic, did anyone else giggle at Trump's prayer breakfast speech about how pious he is, delivered mere hours after admitting publicly that he paid hush money to a porn star he fucked while his wife was recovering from childbirth?

You sure do know how to deliver a joke, Donny. Your timing is impeccable.

A quote from the article: The stories told tend toward presenting the liar favorably. The liar "decorates their own person" by telling stories that present them as the hero or the victim. For example, the person might be presented as being fantastically brave, as knowing or being related to many famous people, or as having great power, position, or wealth.

Another quote from the article: There are many consequences of being a pathological liar. Due to lack of trust, most pathological liars' relationships and friendships fail. If this continues to progress, lying could become so severe as to cause legal problems, including, but not limited to, fraud.

Life is a stage, and when the curtain falls upon an act, it is finished and forgotten. The emptiness of such a life is beyond imagination.—Alexander Lowen describing the existence of a narcissistFour dimensions of narcissism as a personality variable have been delineated: leadership/authority, superiority/arrogance, self-absorption/self-admiration, and exploitativeness/entitlement.

A 2012 book on power-hungry narcissists suggests that narcissists typically display most, and sometimes all, of the following traits:

An obvious self-focus in interpersonal exchangesProblems in sustaining satisfying relationshipsA lack of psychological awareness (see insight in psychology and psychiatry, egosyntonic)Difficulty with empathyProblems distinguishing the self from others (see personal boundaries)Hypersensitivity to any insults or imagined insults (see criticism and narcissists, narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury)Vulnerability to shame rather than guiltHaughty body languageFlattery towards people who admire and affirm them (narcissistic supply)Detesting those who do not admire them (narcissistic abuse)Using other people without considering the cost of doing soPretending to be more important than they actually areBragging (subtly but persistently) and exaggerating their achievementsClaiming to be an "expert" at many thingsInability to view the world from the perspective of other peopleDenial of remorse and gratitude

While we're on the topic, did anyone else giggle at Trump's prayer breakfast speech about how pious he is, delivered mere hours after admitting publicly that he paid hush money to a porn star he fucked while his wife was recovering from childbirth?

You sure do know how to deliver a joke, Donny. Your timing is impeccable.

While we're on the topic, did anyone else giggle at Trump's prayer breakfast speech about how pious he is, delivered mere hours after admitting publicly that he paid hush money to a porn star he fucked while his wife was recovering from childbirth?

You sure do know how to deliver a joke, Donny. Your timing is impeccable.

The evangelicals got into bed with the Republicans because they promised to be anti-gay and anti-abortion and anti-Islam. It was basically inevitable that eventually have to support someone like Trump, a person who personifies at least four of the seven deadly sins. Politics and power do not gel well with piety. Ironically, this is exactly why our founders, many of whom were deeply religious, wanted to keep church and state separate - it wasn't because they feared religion would taint government, but that politics would compromise their religion.

The very same people who have tried to force more religion into public life are now stuck supporting a thrice divorced, prideful adulterer with bad language and little interest in their religion or social causes. At the new church of Trump they must worship at the alter of corporate profits. If you are sufficiently loyal he alone (not Jesus) can grant you forgiveness int he form of a pardon. The merit of a human comes not from their accomplishments but from their accumulation of wealth, and the downtrodden and poor do not warrant our assistance. His is a church of force, not one of mercy. There will be no turning the other cheek or walking in another's shoes - instead you 'bomb the shit' out those you don't like and 'hit them back ten times harder'.

I think that there is no way that politicians set the prescient that consistent lying is grounds for being removed from office.

What the poster above is suggesting is using the 25th amendment to forcibly remove a sitting president. While the 25th has been evoked several times voluntarily for temporary events (the most recently by 'W' when he underwent anesthesia for a colonoscopy), it has never been used to oust a president. There is an immense bar to clear to forceably remove a president under the 25th.

To do so the VP (Pence) with support from a majority of the cabinet level officers (whom Trump all appointed) would need to submit a letter to the president pro tempore (Hatch (R).) and Speaker of the House (currently still Ryan (R).) Even if it got that far, Trump could refute the their decision and Congress would have to weigh in, with a 2/3 vote needed to remove, which currently would require every Democratic senator + 17 GOP and every Democratic house member + 97 GOP house members.It's hard to see how Pence and half his cabinet and a good chunk of his own party will go down that road unless Trump does something as brash and immoral as start a nuclear war.

As removals go, a far more likely scenario would be for Dems to gain control of both houses with sizable majorities. At which point they would control the committees and could investigate, subpeona, release information of their investigation (including tax records and business dealings). Even then convicting during impeachment is incredibly hard, and due to the nature of the 2018 midterms even under the best scenarios Dems won't have enough seats to reach the 2/3 threshold, and would still need to rely on multiple GOP senators. Its possible with a poor enough showing more members of the GOP might be willing to turn against Trump if they see no other way of winning re-election while supporitng Trump (at least 20 GOP senate seats will be in play in 2020, compared to just 8 in 2018).

Giuliani has a serious advantage here. As you may have heard on Friday, Trump said it was his first day. Of course he was announced as part of the legal team in April. However, I suspect that in a day or two Trump will again claim that it's his first day. He could just keep getting first days and never even have to have a full Scaramucci!

One impact of the Trump presidency so far is that (IMO) the executive branch is acting more and more like a reality TV show than a traditional branch of government. It's not just the near-weekly firings of some major cast member, but also the way they announce policy decisions as if they were some hook to get you to watch the next episode. "Tune in tonight as DJT will make a major decision - will he side with republicans on the hill, or will he buck the trend and go a completely different way?"

to a degree all administrations have done media blitzes to garner support for their policies, but the announcements seem more designed to dominate the news cycle and less about pushing the policy itself. Not particularly surprising from a reality-TV president, but it pisses me off when it seems like something is being done for viewership rather than any sound policy strategy. Real people are affected by these decisions.

One impact of the Trump presidency so far is that (IMO) the executive branch is acting more and more like a reality TV show than a traditional branch of government. It's not just the near-weekly firings of some major cast member, but also the way they announce policy decisions as if they were some hook to get you to watch the next episode. "Tune in tonight as DJT will make a major decision - will he side with republicans on the hill, or will he buck the trend and go a completely different way?"

to a degree all administrations have done media blitzes to garner support for their policies, but the announcements seem more designed to dominate the news cycle and less about pushing the policy itself. Not particularly surprising from a reality-TV president, but it pisses me off when it seems like something is being done for viewership rather than any sound policy strategy. Real people are affected by these decisions.

This is one place where Trump is using a skill set that I admit he has. He's a promoter. For example, when he says "I'll announce my decision on the Iran Agreement on Tuesday", he's telling his supporters that he's making the decision that they want to see and giving it a few extra days to make sure that more people are aware of it. We know and they know that he's going to damage the agreement, but more people will hear about it this way.

I agree that this doesn't have to do with governing, but that's not part of Trump's interest or something that he understands.

One impact of the Trump presidency so far is that (IMO) the executive branch is acting more and more like a reality TV show than a traditional branch of government. It's not just the near-weekly firings of some major cast member, but also the way they announce policy decisions as if they were some hook to get you to watch the next episode. "Tune in tonight as DJT will make a major decision - will he side with republicans on the hill, or will he buck the trend and go a completely different way?"

to a degree all administrations have done media blitzes to garner support for their policies, but the announcements seem more designed to dominate the news cycle and less about pushing the policy itself. Not particularly surprising from a reality-TV president, but it pisses me off when it seems like something is being done for viewership rather than any sound policy strategy. Real people are affected by these decisions.

This is one place where Trump is using a skill set that I admit he has. He's a promoter. For example, when he says "I'll announce my decision on the Iran Agreement on Tuesday", he's telling his supporters that he's making the decision that they want to see and giving it a few extra days to make sure that more people are aware of it. We know and they know that he's going to damage the agreement, but more people will hear about it this way.

I agree that this doesn't have to do with governing, but that's not part of Trump's interest or something that he understands.

The other benefit it has is that you end up thinking about whatever it is more often. You think about it when he announces his decisions. But you also think about when he announces the announcement of the decision. And then Huckster makes another announcement about the announcement. In this way he appears to be doing more than he actually is and so the supporters who cannot discern reality then run around town telling everyone how busy DJT is and look what a great choice they made because he's getting so much more done than any other president, so much, so much more. It's just in your brain more, but the result he is did one thing and got you to remember that he did it five time, so later it turns into he did five things because you forget it was all about the same thing. In fact this whole e-mail is designed how DJT works. I said a lot of words when I could have said two and I got you to think I said a whole lot more than I did.

The US has withdrawn from the Iran nuclear deal. I'm trying to parse what this actually means to the world. It's very hard to understand the details. for example, Wikipedia says:

Quote

According to the U.S. State Department fact sheet and a joint statement by Iran and the EU, Iran has agreed to convert its underground Fordo facility into a research centre for nuclear science and physics and about half of the Fordo facility would be dedicated to advanced nuclear research and production of stable radioisotopes which have important applications in medicine, agriculture, industry and science.[17] Furthermore, Iran would maintain no more than 1,044 centrifuges for this purpose.

Even this one aspect of the deal is hard to fathom in detail. If Iran converts it's Fordo facility to a research center, how hard would it be to covertly convert it back? 1044 centrifuges sounds like a lot of centrifuges, but is it? What's the capacity of an Iranian centrifuge? How much enriched uranium is too much? And what are these radioisotopes the Iranians wish to produce, anyway?

Now that the US has withdrawn from the deal, will Iran also abrogate their commitment? And if they do go down this road, what exactly will they do? Will they block the IAEA from making their inspections? Will they resume work on a nuclear weapons program? For that matter, did they actually stop work on a nuclear weapons program?

Does this make a war between Israel and Iran more or less likely? And does the president have an endgame in mind? Does he intend to go and negotiate a better deal after repudiating the existing one? Is there some other endgame?

More likely. By exiting the deal we are leaving a vacuum. France/UK/Germany are (for now) sticking with the deal, but if the US decides to place additional sactions (thus violating the concession of the original deal) why would any of the remaining parties, including Iran, continue to hold up their end?Israel will do whatever it feels necessary to protect themselves. This could mean airstrikes. Russia is allied with Iran, so in the absence of a united front it will be much easier for Russia to aid Iran in a conflict against Israel (not to mention that Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear material outside the US).

Quote

And does the president have an endgame in mind?

There has been no indication of this

Quote

Does he intend to go and negotiate a better deal after repudiating the existing one?

He claims to want a better deal, but has not articulated what a better deal might entail. Without the support of the Uk/Germany/France the US will have less leverage to cut a better deal than it did under Obama, and that deal took two years to hammer out. How DJT expects to burn our allies and then somehow leverage a 'better' deal in less time is a mystery to me. Perhaps he will pull it off, but I doubt it.

It's also worth noting here that International Policy bench is abnormally thin right now, at a time when DJT is attempting to reset relations with BOTH N. Korea and Iran. Don't expect Russia and China to stay out of this, and both have arguably better ties and more leverage with the countries in question than the US does right now.

Quote

Is there some other endgame?

Armed conflict, a nuclear Iran, a shift of power in the Middle East...?Dammit, the more I think of it, the most annoyed I get over this whole thing. DJT seems to have jumped out of hte deal simply because "Obama did it". But hte lives of tens of millions are in the balance, and its entirely possible that this could lead to a military encounter, or worse.

More likely. By exiting the deal we are leaving a vacuum. France/UK/Germany are (for now) sticking with the deal, but if the US decides to place additional sactions (thus violating the concession of the original deal) why would any of the remaining parties, including Iran, continue to hold up their end?Israel will do whatever it feels necessary to protect themselves. This could mean airstrikes. Russia is allied with Iran, so in the absence of a united front it will be much easier for Russia to aid Iran in a conflict against Israel (not to mention that Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear material outside the US).

Quote

And does the president have an endgame in mind?

There has been no indication of this

Quote

Does he intend to go and negotiate a better deal after repudiating the existing one?

He claims to want a better deal, but has not articulated what a better deal might entail. Without the support of the Uk/Germany/France the US will have less leverage to cut a better deal than it did under Obama, and that deal took two years to hammer out. How DJT expects to burn our allies and then somehow leverage a 'better' deal in less time is a mystery to me. Perhaps he will pull it off, but I doubt it.

It's also worth noting here that International Policy bench is abnormally thin right now, at a time when DJT is attempting to reset relations with BOTH N. Korea and Iran. Don't expect Russia and China to stay out of this, and both have arguably better ties and more leverage with the countries in question than the US does right now.

Quote

Is there some other endgame?

Armed conflict, a nuclear Iran, a shift of power in the Middle East...?Dammit, the more I think of it, the most annoyed I get over this whole thing. DJT seems to have jumped out of hte deal simply because "Obama did it". But hte lives of tens of millions are in the balance, and its entirely possible that this could lead to a military encounter, or worse.

The timing of this likely has the most to do with adding John Bolton to the team. He is a rabid hardliner who has never seen a regime change in the middle east that he did not like the idea of. He has been on the record wanting regime change resulting in the ouster of the mullahs in Iran for years. Promoting a deal that lends to a normalization of relations with the current leadership in Iran is anathema to Bolton's desires. He has Trump's ear, and Trump is easily swayed. The presence of John Bolton dramatically increases our risk of war in the middle east. Expect it to start with a "targeted strike" against something that someone says is nuke facility.

The timing of this likely has the most to do with adding John Bolton to the team. He is a rabid hardliner who has never seen a regime change in the middle east that he did not like the idea of. He has been on the record wanting regime change resulting in the ouster of the mullahs in Iran for years. Promoting a deal that lends to a normalization of relations with the current leadership in Iran is anathema to Bolton's desires. He has Trump's ear, and Trump is easily swayed. The presence of John Bolton dramatically increases our risk of war in the middle east. Expect it to start with a "targeted strike" against something that someone says is nuke facility.

Possibly. On the other hand DJT's been railing on the Iran deal since he was candidate Trump. Another interpretation is that Trump has wanted to break the deal since he took office (because, Obama!!), but up until this point he's had people like McMaster who has kept these desires in check. Now Bolton enthusiastically eggs him on.Either way the result is the same, so we're just waxing poetic on the mechanisms.

One point I just can't wrap my head around is how Trump's biggest criticism of the deal is that he did not like the sunset provisions which kicked in around 2030. But hte irony here is that by breaking the deal he's effectively changed the expiration date from 2030 to 2018.

I'm struck by the terminology being used here... the us is 'withdrawing' and we will 're-negotiate' while applying 'the highest level of sanctions'. To be clear this is for a situation where Iran complied with every condition in the deal.Imagine if it had gone another way, and Iran announced they were leaving the deal. I imagine the words used would include 'violate' and 'break' and 'defiant' and some in this cabinet would declare this a prelude to war. The subtext here is the US can break deals without consequences, presumably because we have a superior military.

More likely. By exiting the deal we are leaving a vacuum. France/UK/Germany are (for now) sticking with the deal, but if the US decides to place additional sactions (thus violating the concession of the original deal) why would any of the remaining parties, including Iran, continue to hold up their end?Israel will do whatever it feels necessary to protect themselves. This could mean airstrikes. Russia is allied with Iran, so in the absence of a united front it will be much easier for Russia to aid Iran in a conflict against Israel (not to mention that Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear material outside the US).

Quote

And does the president have an endgame in mind?

There has been no indication of this

Quote

Does he intend to go and negotiate a better deal after repudiating the existing one?

He claims to want a better deal, but has not articulated what a better deal might entail. Without the support of the Uk/Germany/France the US will have less leverage to cut a better deal than it did under Obama, and that deal took two years to hammer out. How DJT expects to burn our allies and then somehow leverage a 'better' deal in less time is a mystery to me. Perhaps he will pull it off, but I doubt it.

It's also worth noting here that International Policy bench is abnormally thin right now, at a time when DJT is attempting to reset relations with BOTH N. Korea and Iran. Don't expect Russia and China to stay out of this, and both have arguably better ties and more leverage with the countries in question than the US does right now.

Quote

Is there some other endgame?

Armed conflict, a nuclear Iran, a shift of power in the Middle East...?Dammit, the more I think of it, the most annoyed I get over this whole thing. DJT seems to have jumped out of hte deal simply because "Obama did it". But hte lives of tens of millions are in the balance, and its entirely possible that this could lead to a military encounter, or worse.

The timing of this likely has the most to do with adding John Bolton to the team. He is a rabid hardliner who has never seen a regime change in the middle east that he did not like the idea of. He has been on the record wanting regime change resulting in the ouster of the mullahs in Iran for years. Promoting a deal that lends to a normalization of relations with the current leadership in Iran is anathema to Bolton's desires. He has Trump's ear, and Trump is easily swayed. The presence of John Bolton dramatically increases our risk of war in the middle east. Expect it to start with a "targeted strike" against something that someone says is nuke facility.

I think the end of the Iran nuclear pact and return of economic sanctions doesn’t mean much for the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iran. Iran’s air defenses are much more advanced now compared to Iraq’s when the Osiraq reactor was destroyed in the early 80s. There are no friendly countries that would allow Israel a flight path, and all a unilateral strike would accomplish (in my opinion) would be to serve as an avenue of reconciliation between the Shi’a/Sunni countries in the Gulf to unite around a common enemy (Israel). Iran wants nukes so the mullahs don’t fear going the way of Hussein in Iraq (same as North Korea).

What frustrates me about the Iran nuclear deal is it distracts from what should be keeping people up at night: Pakistan does have nukes, has a program that exists because of Saudi funding, and has an extremely duplicitous relationship with jihadists in the region. Of all the political moves by the Trump Administration, putting the least qualified candidate in charge of the DoE (Perry) after perhaps the most qualified candidate in history (Moniz) and the proposed budget cuts to DoEs Nuclear materials certification and tracking programs tells me this Administration doesn’t really hold nuclear non-proliferation as an important national and international priority.

Of all the political moves by the Trump Administration, putting the least qualified candidate in charge of the DoE (Perry) after perhaps the most qualified candidate in history (Moniz) and the proposed budget cuts to DoEs Nuclear materials certification and tracking programs tells me this Administration doesn’t really hold nuclear non-proliferation as an important national and international priority.

Foreign Policy is definitely this administration's weakest point (which is saying a lot given all the crises and self-inflicted wounds). We're lacking ambassadors to something like 40 top-level posts (including S. Korea & Germany), Trump has proposed cutting both international aid and the State Department (though to thier credit Congress stepped in and said "no" and granted full funding), The first SoS was recently fired, there have been 3 national security advisors and half of the highest level state department jobs are vacant; career staffers have left in droves, mostly because Rex didn't give them much confidence they or their mission mattered.

Now DJT is convinced that he can negotiate on two continents in two of the hardest regions with a mostly rookie staff after he's burned a few more bridges and tossed a few bombs for good measure. Dem or Rep, it's hard to imagine a scenario with tougher odds of success, and so many potential avenues for failure (or at least winding up "less good" than before).

Now DJT is convinced that he can negotiate on two continents in two of the hardest regions with a mostly rookie staff after he's burned a few more bridges and tossed a few bombs for good measure. Dem or Rep, it's hard to imagine a scenario with tougher odds of success, and so many potential avenues for failure (or at least winding up "less good" than before).

Lots of people voted for this plan on purpose. Their thinking appeared to be that things weren't going particularly well, so how much worse could it get if we gave Bozo The Clown his shot? People like change, they like to shake things up, and they give no credit whatsoever to past administrations that contained threats and prevented international crises. Maybe he'll shake something loose?

Now DJT is convinced that he can negotiate on two continents in two of the hardest regions with a mostly rookie staff after he's burned a few more bridges and tossed a few bombs for good measure. Dem or Rep, it's hard to imagine a scenario with tougher odds of success, and so many potential avenues for failure (or at least winding up "less good" than before).

Lots of people voted for this plan on purpose. Their thinking appeared to be that things weren't going particularly well, so how much worse could it get if we gave Bozo The Clown his shot? People like change, they like to shake things up, and they give no credit whatsoever to past administrations that contained threats and prevented international crises. Maybe he'll shake something loose?

Like a world war?

I think you are right about many people just wanting change and not particularly caring if things get burned down in the process. Credit is rarely given to those that keep things together.

I don't see how we wind up in a true world war from where we are now. The US (particularly under this administration) has no appetite for boots-on-the-ground occupation of new countries, so we're not likely to be like 1939 Germany. China and (distantly) Russia are about the only powers who could give our military a run for the money - Putin, emboldened by Trumps pussyfooting might test this with some skirmishes but all of europe is still wary of the big brown bear and so I can't see how that would lead to all-out conflict. China might push its might around in their quadrant of the globe but doesn't seem interested in leaving the South Pacific. just my unprofessional analysis...

Now Iran can renegotiate a more favourable deal with the EU. As with the TPP and the climate change treaty, US irresoluteness and unreliability allow the rest of the world to get on with life peacefully.

I don't see how we wind up in a true world war from where we are now. The US (particularly under this administration) has no appetite for boots-on-the-ground occupation of new countries

Do you think the US was eager to get involved in either of the last two world wars? We fought internally for years to resist the need to step up. We always joined last.

I think it's a pretty easy path to envision, because it would follow the same path as before. A minor regional skirmish, probably a proxy for a larger conflict between larger nations, would cause one nation to invade another's territory under guise of "liberation" or "emancipation" or "reunification", and the invaded country would call upon the treaty obligations of their allies for defense. The cascade of treaty alliances eventually sucks everyone in. For example, as soon as the first NATO state suffers casualties, every NATO state is suddenly involved.

East Asia and the Middle East are both ripe for this sort of thing. They have long simmering regional conflicts with superpower backing, racial tensions, resource disparities, disputed land ownership, and abundant cannon fodder populations. I'll be shocked if we make it another 20 years without one or both of these areas turning into a hot war that could potentially go global.

I don't see how we wind up in a true world war from where we are now. The US (particularly under this administration) has no appetite for boots-on-the-ground occupation of new countries

Do you think the US was eager to get involved in either of the last two world wars? We fought internally for years to resist the need to step up. We always joined last.

I think it's a pretty easy path to envision, because it would follow the same path as before. A minor regional skirmish, probably a proxy for a larger conflict between larger nations, would cause one nation to invade another's territory under guise of "liberation" or "emancipation" or "reunification", and the invaded country would call upon the treaty obligations of their allies for defense. The cascade of treaty alliances eventually sucks everyone one. For example, as soon as the first NATO state suffers casualties, every NATO state is suddenly involved.

East Asia and the Middle East are both ripe for this sort of thing. They have long simmering regional conflicts with superpower backing, racial tensions, resource disparities, disputed land ownership, and abundant cannon fodder populations. I'll be shocked if we make it another 20 years without one or both of these areas turning into a hot war that could potentially go global.

you make some good and interesting points as always, Sol. I hope for everyone's sake you are wrong on this account.

you make some good and interesting points as always, Sol. I hope for everyone's sake you are wrong on this account.

Thanks, but I'm small potatoes. They have guys at the Pentagon who do this sort of thing for a living. They've wargamed out every possible scenario they can think of, both in terms of narrative development but also what troop and equipment levels they would need in what places in each eventuality. What battlegroups operating in what theaters with support from what bases, and what to do if those bases are lost or those battlegroups disabled, all the way down to the nitty gritty stuff like how long it would take them to reinstitute the draft or build more F-22s or snip some undersea cables. It starts with potential diplomatic maneuvers that might unfold, and ends with body bags.

These narrative decision trees and the resulting response matrices are always being updated as new events unfold and change the probabilities. I'm guessing that working there got REAL interesting when Trump got elected and everything went to hell. Suddenly crazy shit like "maybe he'll surprise nuke North Korea" was back on the table, and they had to plan for all of it.